Amazing Spider-Man 55 (Spoilers)

[Frontier]

How many of those are "canon"? None but a few. Marvel can put out as much as they can, but the fact is that besides the 616 universe, none of them "count". That's not fair, especially when the other stories are so much better and more cohesive than this. On top of that, none of these works reflect the original version of the character from Lee and Ditko; which would be fine if there were a central grounding point in 616. But there isn't. Now, pretty much every Spider-Man story is an AU after OMD, and it makes no sense why Marvel would retain the rights save for money if they're just printing an AU. Public domain isn't a cure; it's the next step.

Spencer, Taylor, and the satellite titles are all canon and relatively cohesive. I may not love everything but I think it's unfair to say there's nothing in them that reflects on the core of the character to some degree (well, at least when needed, because does a Black Cat and Venom book really need to reflect Lee and Ditko?). I think Marvel Action is fun but I don't need to see every Spider-Man story be Peter, Miles, and Gwen but it's there for those that do (and it seems like the next iteration is going to be solo Peter as well). Just like how I don't jive with MCU Spider-Man the way others do.

I feel like every Spider-Man story being seen as an AU after OMD is just people trying to write off all the Spider-Man stories that have happened since then. Not all of them have been winners but I think there's been enough people have enjoyed and invested in to make it worth keeping and not completely write off. I doubt that's what Spencer is going to do with wherever he's going with this.

In some regards, Spider-Man is already public domain in terms of the creative element.

That's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not seeing where the Public Domain would shake things up to a positive effect compared to what is already happening with the property.

Going PD means that Spider-Man isn't under the whim of a handful of people (Marvel Editors, Execs) who didn't have anything to do with the original creation of the character, and aren't faithful to the original vision of the creators and who will actively limit and arrest the direction and halt any attempts at change and growth to bring him line into how he was originally introduced.

It also means creators who work on a PD property via adaptation can earn from their art and contributions in a way they wouldn't if they work at Marvel on license.

Going PD means that Spider-Man can be enjoyed and appreciated as a creation independent of any corporate baggage.

Can we completely write off all execs and editors as not trying to fulfill the original version of the character? We can't expect that all creators working on a public domain version of the property would be all that more likely to respect the original vision rather than wanting to do their own take.

I respect wanting artists and creators to get more bang for their buck for their work but the cats out of the bag on that one in terms of the Big Two, which is probably why creators create original stuff for their runs that they can still get credit for with adaptions. Although would Spencer get credit for media use of Kindred since it turned out to be Harry?

I know corporate baggage is automatically seen as a negative in anything but if you look at the franchise comprehensively I'd say some of the stuff various fans enjoy about it can be traced back to "corporate baggage."

[Jness]

The whole "Spider-Man is about youth" thing that was cooked up by Bill Jemas and Joe Quesada and passed downwards via Brevoort and that has infected and contaminated the Spider-Man stories for the last 2 decades and in adaptations.

Exactly, and it's a misread. IMO, Spider-Man isn't about youth - Spider-Man is about the transition from youth to adult, with all the struggles, triumphs, and awkwardness that the journey entails. When you lose that journey you lose what I think makes the character great.

[WebSlingWonder]

Spencer, Taylor, and the satellite titles are all canon and relatively cohesive. I may not love everything but I think it's unfair to say there's nothing in them that reflects on the core of the character to some degree (well, at least when needed, because does a Black Cat and Venom book really need to reflect Lee and Ditko?). I think Marvel Action is fun but I don't need to see every Spider-Man story be Peter, Miles, and Gwen but it's there for those that do (and it seems like the next iteration is going to be solo Peter as well). Just like how I don't jive with MCU Spider-man the way others do.

I feel like every Spider-Man story being seen as an AU after OMD is just people trying to write off all the Spider-Man stories that have happened since then. Not all of them have been winners but I think there's been enough people have enjoyed and invested in to make it worth keeping and not completely write off. I doubt that's what Spencer is going to do with wherever he's going with this.

That's kind of what I'm saying. I'm not seeing where the Public Domain would shake things up to a positive effect compared to what is already happening with the property.

I'm not saying these books were bad or didn't capture the spirit of the character: but public domain allows a writer total freedom to not have to worry about that, still tell their story, and be able to receive ample compensation. They don't have to worry about Don Mickey coming down on them for not being "their version."

Honestly, I don't know why you're fighting so hard against this. Like I said, and you even agreed: Spidey's practically public domain already. You could still have an ITSV, an MCU Spider-Man, what have you, and no creative hindrances. In fact, it might even be better.

The fact is that Spider-Man, save for a few modern writers who understand him, has been bastardized to the point of being not only unrecognizable but also horribly written.

[RyanParkerMan]

1) These issues were written and prepared before the Lockdown.

2) Three months of 2020 didn't have comics because of the Pandemic.

3) Creators at the comics business are incredibly vulnerable themselves.

The issue was flawed, not everything got addressed, that's all true...but I think "fans spending stimulus money" is a lowblow because that was never part of the plan or something they were prepared for.

Yeah it was a low blow. Plenty of fans still spent stimulus money though on today's comics. It's a low blow for a few reasons, one such reason is it's their decision to spend their money how they choose and Marvel isn't targeting people who lost their jobs. So dick move on me. I'm just upset. I've supported this run since issue 1. It's been in my opinion, overall a bad run. I supported this current story up and to the last issue, and as a consumer and fan I feel really let down.

Also, Disney should pay their staff more. The staff that's plotting their movies. It's a disgrace.

[WebSlingWonder]

Exactly, and it's a misread. IMO, Spider-Man isn't about youth - Spider-Man is about the transition from youth to adult, with all the struggles, triumphs, and awkwardness that the journey entails. When you lose that journey you lose what I think makes the character great.

Exactly. That is excellent.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Really? How many "great" writers are on Marvel and DC at any given time?

Well, how many great writers in comics do you have working at any given time? Right now the best living writers in English-language comics would be Alan Moore (who's retired) or Kieron Gillen (who has found success on his creator owned gigs and hopefully would never have to do superhero stuff for a living again), or Ed Brubaker for his crime comics.

Proportionately Marvel does have talent.

At Marvel we have Zdarsky, Cates, Aaron (tough time on Avengers) and Hickman (having a real tough time on the X-Books)

His X-men run is selling pretty well and is a major critical success.

Spider-Man is Marvel Comics flagship character. When is the last time we had a legendary run on that book? How about X-Men?

For X-Men you had Grant Morrison and now Hickman and in-between you had decent comics and titles by Aaron, Tom Taylor, Cullen Bunn among others. For Spider-Man...I honestly don't think there's really such a thing as a "legendary run" on Spider-Man because historically this has been a consistently maintained title, far more so than other Marvel titles. Chris Claremont's run on X-Men or Miller on Daredevil gets to be legendary because they took obscure titles from the pits to the heights...with Spider-Man no writer's been in a position to claim that because the title's never gotten to a very low point. The nearest is when JMS revived ASM after Mackie's run in the Post-Clone Saga and Clone Saga malaise. And maybe Roger Stern who revived ASM after the Wein-Wolfman-O'Neill era of bland boring stories. But neither run good as it is, is on the scale and scope of Claremont and Miller.

You invest based on risk and ROI. Marvel Comics has a customer base at scale, which lets them de-risk different stories and characters. Fan fiction doesn't have that scale, and even if they do, it's more difficult to measure the sucess and response or stories that are sold for free.

Public Domain doesn't mean fan-fiction though. Junji Ito the manga creator adapted Frankenstein recently, and that adaptation by Ito is a commercial work that people pay for but Ito gets to keep profits from that because Frankie boy is PD. So Spider-Man going PD doesn't mean fanfiction (we have Spider-Man fanfiction now when it's Marvel owned and made so that's never an issue).

And where do the characters and stories come from? They come from comics. That's why you invest in comics.

Characters and stories don't come from comics. They come from creators, they come from people, and they usually don't get paid enough in terms of what they did and contribute, or are properly credited even.

[evolutionaryFan]

I've got a question because I haven't read 54 LR. Has it been established for sure that Norman Osborn wasn't cleansed by Sin-Eater? If so how did he prevent the cleansing?

[WebSlingWonder]

I've got a question because I haven't read 54 LR. Has it been established for sure that Norman Osborn wasn't cleansed by Sin-Eater? If so how did he prevent the cleansing?

It's been established that he prepared somehow after #31, when Kindred visited him in his cell.

[Frontier]

I'm not saying these books were bad or didn't capture the spirit of the character: but public domain allows a writer total freedom to not have to worry about that, still tell their story, and be able to receive ample compensation. They don't have to worry about Don Mickey coming down on them for not being "their version."

Honestly, I don't know why you're fighting so hard against this. Like I said, and you even agreed: Spidey's practically public domain already. You could still have an ITSV, an MCU Spider-Man, what have you, and no creative hindrances. In fact, it might even be better.

The fact is that Spider-Man, save for a few modern writers who understand him, has been bastardized to the point of being not only unrecognizable but also horribly written.

No, that's what they have the fans for .

I'm not fighting so much as just disagreeing. My comment was that it seems like some of the effect people want with Spidey in the public domain is already achieved with things as they are, rather than just saying he's already a public domain property. I'm perfectly happy with creators getting better compensated but that gets into a deeper issue about Big Two comic properties in general.

Is the character really in that bad a straits?

[evolutionaryFan]

It's been established that he prepared somehow after #31, when Kindred visited him in his cell.

Thanks. So is there much chance Norman is actually sin-free and just acting evil to put a stop to Harry?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Can we completely write off all execs and editors as not trying to fulfill the original version of the character?

Collectively, I would say yes. That doesn't mean these people are evil, or amoral, or so on. If I had an internship at Marvel and worked my way and paid my dues as many of them got their jobs right now, I am not sure I would be any different.

But I would say on the whole, Marvel ownership of their properties isn't really justified on grounds that Marvel alone are the best custodians of their IP. Sure Marvel is better than DC who have rightly f--ked up Superman and allowed whole brands to stagnate and wither on the vine, and the case of DC creations better off in public domain is greater than Marvel's, but that doesn't mean Marvel's off the hook.

We can't expect that all creators working on a public domain version of the property would be all that more likely to respect the original vision rather than wanting to do their own take.

That's true but it's still better. Take Dracula, public domain IP, constantly overexposed and you have so many different versions and takes across media. Some sympathetic, some monstrous, some cuddly, some Lovecraftian but it all sits on the shelf together, whether it's Universal's Dracula, Coppola's Dracula, Hammer Horror Christopher Lee Dracula, Castlevania and Alucard, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with its take on Mina Murray.

If Spider-Man goes PD, you are likely to see for instance horror movie takes on Peter Parker, edgy drama about Spider-Man, a Daily Bugle office comedy take, adaptations that have Spider-Man and Peter go postal or whatever. I say it's worth it. Because you will get so many different approaches to it. And before people go "think of the children..." tell me has all the dark cynical edgy takes on Alice in Wonderland (whether it's the game or Jefferson Airplane song) diminished the appeal of the original stories for children. I don't think so.

I know corporate baggage is automatically seen as a negative in anything but if you look at the franchise comprehensively I'd say some of the stuff various fans enjoy about it can be traced back to "corporate baggage."

I don't see corporate baggage as determining as opposed to accidental or incidental factors.

I'm not saying these books were bad or didn't capture the spirit of the character: but public domain allows a writer total freedom to not have to worry about that, still tell their story, and be able to receive ample compensation. They don't have to worry about Don Mickey coming down on them for not being "their version."

Don Marveleone is how I'd call it.

Honestly, I don't know why you're fighting so hard against this. Like I said, and you even agreed: Spidey's practically public domain already.

I wouldn't say that at all.

The fact is that Spider-Man, save for a few modern writers who understand him, has been bastardized to the point of being not only unrecognizable but also horribly written.

This.

[PCN24454]

The real problem with comics, with the fans, and with the debates on 'Spider-Man is about youth' is that Spider-Man is a property Marvel wants to make money with, and draw value from. It's not about treating Peter Parker as a character in a story but as a corporate brand.

If Spider-Man was public domain, then that all goes away. He can become like Robin Hood, like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, like Captain Ahab, or any other fairy tale. Spider-Man becomes a bedtime story you tell your kids, and the Spider-Man story you make up for your kid or nephew gets to be as canon as anything else. I can tell my nephew a variation of a fairy tale like Aladdin where I change up the ending and introduce new adventures and stuff, and it would be canon.

Some would argue about copyright and creators but how? Spider-Man was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, both are dead. Both creators had a vision and perspective about the character and Marvel editorial have repeatedly proven that they are not gonna be beholden to their vision and wishes for the character...so if Marvel isn't being faithful to Lee and Ditko who made it clear in their comics and their public observations many times over the decades that they saw the character as one who will grow old...then they don't have real justification to act as custodians for the character because they are in fact changing and altering and making Spider-Man vastly different from how he first started out. Marvel is not being faithful to the intentions of the creators the way that for instance, the Tolkien Estate under Christopher Tolkien has acted many times in trying to be faithful to the original vision of his father's work. In the latter case, you can make a case for copyright law to protect an IP but not in the case of Marvel. The whole "Spider-Man is about youth" thing that was cooked up by Bill Jemas and Joe Quesada and passed downwards via Brevoort and that has infected and contaminated the Spider-Man stories for the last 2 decades and in adaptations.

Now you can argue that Spider-Man writers and creators who work on the title deserve remuneration and value but again they aren't getting paid enough right now, and they are not willing to unionize. Alan Moore when he worked on public domain characters like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen earned more than he would with licensed titles. If Spider-Man was PD, then any writer on any title who writes a good take on Spider-Man and so on gets to keep more of his fair share and their art than if it were otherwise.

Can you really say that people don't want that? Even people that want Peter to "grow-up" still don't want him to progress beyond a single point.

[WebSlingWonder]

No, that's what they have the fans for .

I'm not fighting so much as just disagreeing. My comment was that it seems like some of the effect people want with Spidey in the public domain is already achieved with things as they are, rather than just saying he's already a public domain property. I'm perfectly happy with creators getting better compensated but that gets into a deeper issue about Big Two comic properties in general.

Is the character really in that bad a straits?

Yes. Yes, he is. Commercially, no. But while we may enjoy certain takes, the creative element has taken a nosedive. Even Spencer has resorted to trying to "fix" past stories. When you spend the bulk of a run trying to clean up other people's messes, you know you're in a bad situation.

[WebSlingWonder]

Thanks. So is there much chance Norman is actually sin-free and just acting evil to put a stop to Harry?

No, the preview for #56 disproves that.

[WebSlingWonder]

Can you really say that people don't want that? Even people that want Peter to "grow-up" still don't want him to progress beyond a single point.

Then they honestly don't like Spider-Man, if I'm being frank. They don't want the story as originally intended and just want some watered down version. They want a "kind of" Peter with "some" character progression. For Peter, progression was age and experience. If people didn't want him progressing past a certain point, then what the hell is the point? Just mindless entertainment?